and so now it becomes $62,500. judge friedman estimated the average debt would be $100,000. and the debt forgiveness at $100,000 would automatically send a check to the i.r.s. for $25,000 to pay the tax liability that comes from the debt forgiveness. it would become a tax liability for those individuals.giveness. his estimate, $187,000 500 per settlement believing that the applicants or at least presuming to believe that the pigford settlement were applicants were engaged in programs. now i can tell you whether we can get a deesnt insight into whether there is actual farming that are ts predominantly part of these pigford settlements, the 14,000

that have received their settlements and go back and look at all the data and check their address, their contact information, the amount of the check, how much got sent to the i.r.s. we can look down through there and we can see what percentage of them had debt with the usda that was written off and we can take a look at the addresses and see if some of those who have analyzed those more deeply than i, if you take out a map and start sticking many of these pips, they go into the inner city and urban areas. and people can move from the farm to the city. but the preponderance of the pins tell the story that isn't

consistent with the depthth fraud. i sat down with the employees and had these applications to me and they had to administer these settlements in pigford farms and tell me they fraud level minimum in the applications they were required to provide a virtually payment for, the minimum fraud being at 75%. from usda umbers employees that go up into the 90th per sen tile. to me that we could have 22,000 applicants, 14,500 settlements that are made and of that time not have a single usda employee that was fired, disciplined as a part of discrimination.

we may have actually cleaned up the usda. i would argue that it wasn't nearly as bad as they would like to have us believe. and so if discrimination took place, we should have been able to identify the perpetrators and should have been punished and it's irresponsible on the part of the secretary of agriculture to also say i can find not just people who will apply, now we have an additional 70,000 applications and we are looking at many as 72,000 added to the original claimants and end up with a total of 94,000 who are say they were discriminated against. that's a really effective and efficient marketing result on the part of the attorneys who have been set up on these

contingency fees and who are by the original consent decree and getting the word out know if they have been discriminated against, they can apply. again, no proof required they were discriminate against. early on they were required to prove they were discriminated against and they complained that was too hard so they waived that situated and turned out there is no proof required that they ever farmed or applied for a program, just said they wanted to farm and would have been discriminated against and they complained about it and have their friends sign it. 94,000 applications, perhaps a few less. 94,000 applications. john boyd, president of the black farmers organization that has pushed on this and actually was formed for the purposes of

bringing forth the pigford farms issue testified before the judiciary committee that there are 18,000 black farmers in america. 18,000. granted, there were more a generation earlier. there were more farmers. a lot of my neighbors went broke. i burned and buried a lot of farm sites across western iowa in those years as the farm crises went down into its downward spiral and people who on debt to take on business. the value of their land went down, machinery went down and commodity prices weren't there and bank after bank closed and my bank closed april 26, friday afternoon, 3:00, 1985. i will never forget that day. i had a company to run. i had customers, most of whom

were customers of the bank that was closed, two branches shut down, a payroll to meet. i had two pennies in my pocket to rub together. symbol of how hard it was, rub those two pennies hope, work, wish and pray to meet the payroll, keep running, find customers, because all their frozen. were we found a way to get through. it was difficult, but i watched that crises hit, not just the bank closing my neighborhood but across the nation. i watched family farms move off and move to the city. some of those pins they stuck in pins on people who had to move off. but my point is this, thousands of farmers went broke during the years, the entire

decade of the 1980's, 1979, it was the farm crisis years. alleged discrimination against black farmers. and where it took place, it's hard to quantify, because it's laid over the top of the disaster of the farm crisis years of the decade of the 1980's. many people were denied benefits and loan programs. there were many that were not usda said they were going to go under and were upside and put money was not a good decision. i saw banks close, new owners come in. i saw them interview the people that would come in with their loan application form, their saw ial statements and i them go down through the financial statement. i was in this and i engaged with my neighbors going through this

and they would look at the say, let'sthey would see, you have this new equipment here and you have to sell it and a nice pickup, and we're going to sell it and the livestock could die or sell it. sell all of that and won't need the feed so you can auction off the hay for the calt in the feed lot and you don't need the horse and don't need your best tractor and get you down to a small tractor and you can hire in and custom plant and we'll keep you on some and we'll take the mortgage on it and take a first and a second mortgage on it and we'll keep you operating for a little while but you are going to work on the bank. that's what they had to do to keep them alive and functioning. part of the farm program or farm crisis. the farm program did come in and

gave us another boost in 1985 and got us through the decade and relatively prosperous compared to those years. whatever color you were, if you were farming in the 1980's, you were having trouble. a lot of people went under. there was farm sale after farm sale. they were hanging up up in the gas stations and the barns. and go to farm auctions, every that for a we did long time and i heard a lot and i saw tears run down people's cheeks and they were losing it and i had at this time on who they were. i know, i know from personal experience how painful this is to go through those years and to discount that component of the economy and argue that a lot of african american farmers that went under in the 1980's would still be if it hadn't been

discrimination in the usda offices, it denies the starkest facts of the economy all they can't be untangled. they are tangled together. it's impose possible to quantify. left activity decided to pay everybody. and there was a deadline and filed on april 14, 1999. everybody to sign up, meet in the churches and frys and advertise in the newspaper and radio and held 42 meetings in alabama. and people signed up. and when the deadline came six months after that april 14 date, they had things sewn up. even though money was paid out under this pigford wereimination claim, there members that introduced

legislation to open up pigford two and tried to do it but didn't get it done. buy it.gress wouldn't we have seen the level of fraud in pigford one and to open it up again and extend the closing deadline for the consent decree so that all of these other applicants could come pouring in, roughly 66,000 that is by mulated, wasn't bought the house and senate. it bounced back and forth and versions in e of one side or the other but this congress never got together. together on the authorization to extend the date. we got together on one thing, madam speaker. we got together in the 2008 farm bill to address pigford in a way that the house and senate agreed signed it.sident and it was this. it was brought forward here on the floor right over there fl

that microphone, from colin peterson, a late amendment of language that came into the farm bill that we worked on for a long time. it's a hard job and i'm sure the weight of that weighed on the chairman, but i argued with him at the time. the farm bill authorizes $100 million to close the pigford issue so that if any remaining claims that had not been resolved, they would be put under the $100 million amendment and they would all resolved. i argued, mr. chairman, you are opening up pigford for an additional $1.3 billion in liabilities and it's full of fraud and i spencht way into the night with a representative of the usda who lived this and wept

through circumstance after circumstance and convinced me completely that there is a very, very high level of fraud that was taking place. but yet the structure of this settlement was such they couldn't look into the fraud have to meet dn't the standard, you just had to say you believe you were discriminated against. we had our debate, chairman the on and i outside record of this congress. i said it is $1.3 billion and this is a place holder and marker that opens up the door for $1.3 billion. he said $100 million puts an end to it. and i said i don't think so. so we went around on that dialogue, which ended up with him walking away and i don't know if i blame him for that. but here's what's in the bill. says maximum amount, farm bill, 2008, h.r. 2419, total amount of

payments and debt relief pursuant to actions commenced under subsection b shall not exceed $100 million. that's what the chairman said and here's the intent. intent of congress as to remedial nature of section, it is the intent of congress that this section be liberally construed to if he can tue ate a full determination on the merits pigford claim previously denied that determination. there are rds if 66,000 or 70,000 applicants out there that didn't get in before pigford closed in october of 1999, if those johnny-come-latelies wanted to put in their applications, this congress said here is $100 million. this is the end by law. this is the section that is

cited by the current secretary of agriculture that he says gave him the authority at the direction of congress to open up a pigford two settlement where he, secretary vilsack and attorney general holder sat down with john boyd, the head of the black farmers organization and they cooked up authorized by the house and the senate and as goingbe required if he is to act in the fashion that he told me. not authorized at all. $100 million cap put on the pigford one to put an end to it, by the way i disagreed with the $100 million. i thought we want too far with the first $1.05 billion. but in any case, there exists no authorization that came from congress and no legislation that was passed by the congress and signed by the president that gave the authority to the secretary of agriculture and the attorney general to sit down

with the head of the black farmers organization and arrive at anagreement -- an agreement early last year in february that would tap the taxpayers for an additional $1.15 billion. that's what they agreed to. they went on their own and had these negotiations. now, where would this inspiration have come from? if congress said it's capped at $100 million, how would cabinet members, full cabinet members, come to a conclusion that they needed to go sit down with john boyd and tap the taxpayers for an additional $1.15 billion? where would this come from? well, madam speaker, i won't tell you where i think it may come from. and that would be from the president of the united states. who as a united states senator introduced the pigford two language that opened up the filings for a second round of pigford claims as the united

states senator. led by barack obama. and over on this side, led by davis alabama and bobby scott of virginia. they pushed that. pushed it true the -- they tried to push it through the judiciary committee, wouldn't go. they slipped it into the farm bill for $100 million, they got their place holder. who was right? who was right? was it steve king or tom vilsack or was it collin peterson? because we're here today lamenting what happened on the house floor yesterday which was a vote to send $1.15 billion additional into this pigford two settlement that i will tell you, even though they have put some provisions in here, still result in -- still result in a virtually automatic payment to those claimants that will come. that's what will happen, madam speaker. and so the chairman of the ag committee that said, this is the end of it at $100 million, who

would he disagree with? tom vilsack or steve king? i'm sure he remembers the conversation. i'm sure he remembers that i said it's $1.13 billion and this is just a place hold that are opens it up, this $100 million is a place hold that are opens it up. we disagreed, we had that conversation. one of us is going to be right. did he know when he brought the language to this floor that $100 million was going to turn out to be a place holder for $1.25 billion? that's $100 million plus the $1.15 billion. did he know that? or was the chairman of the ag committee -- apparently was he misinformed by someone else? did the president of the united states direct his cabinet members to go negotiate and reach an agreement for an additional payout under pigford two? where would it come from? would the secretary of agriculture take it upon himself

if he could have ended this to open it up again? i don't think so. would the attorney general take it upon himself to open this up if it was ended by the farm bill of 2008? i don't think so. i think the american people, madam speaker, will suspect as i do that since the president was the initiater of this pigford two legislation as a united states senator, it was the president of the united states more likely that ordered his cabinet members to go sit down and negotiate with the president of the black farmers organization and then try to figure out how to get congress to fund it. because the deal, the settlement proposal and it's not a consent decree, a judge hasn't ruled upon it, the settlement proposal was something that was agreed to contingent upon and conditional to congress appropriating the funds paid. last night congress did that by a vote of 256-152. now, if i were completely wrong

on this, remember, this is the repudiated congress. this is the lame duck congress. this is a congress that the american people have said, enough already. shut it off. take the shuttle out of the president's hand, he's dug a deep enough hole. sp stop your spending. we're going to send people to the congress that will do the battle for fiscal responsibility and stop spending. those folks haven't arrived yet, those 87 new freshmen republicans that will be here taking the oath of office on this floor on the fourth day of january, 2011, they aren't here yet. so we've got the old trick toa ruling. the old troika ruling and still we produce $15 -- 152 no votes on this pigford funding of $1.15 billion that came through here yesterday. madam speaker, i will tell you that i believe that all 152 who voted no on that either deeply suspect or are convinced that there was a significant amount

of fraud in pigford one and that the fraud in pigford two will be substantially greater than it was in pigford one because those at least in theory who were most discriminated against are the ones most likely to have filed the application in pigford one in a timely fashion. those who got the news late, once the inergsa of the recruitment went on across the south, they were the ones that lined up a little later. this is kind of a chain letter affect. 152 voted no. bipartisan objection to the funding of pigford. it wasn't all republicans this time. speaker pelosi's definition it would be clearly bipartisan. but there were three democrats that voted no. those democrats, i presume, were making a statement that they believe eith that are those that had been discriminated against had been compensated or making a statement against the fraud that they must believe exists. and i've not talked to them.

so i can't take a position as to what they have -- what they believed and why they voted no. but it's curious to me that two of the three democrats that voted no on pigford were two that were defeated in the last election. so one can presume that those were votes of conscience that they put up on their way home from this congress. i thank them for their service to this country. we have one that won this election that's seated from the south who also vote no and i'd like to hear from him. he happens to be a rhodes scholar, a man with a brain and a conscience that voted no. so now it's up to us here in this congress in this upcoming congress, to take a look at these records, go down and compile the spread sheet and analyze the data and interview the people that were involved in administering this to get a real picture of what was going on and i'm very well aware that there are good, solid people that are responsible, constitutional

conservatives, that don't want to touch this. i'm very well aware of that, madam speaker. but we have an obligation to the american people to shine a light on it. and i intend to move forward toad that to the extent that i can within the limitations of the time and resources and the cooperation i'm able to get in the 112th congress. but there's a massive amount of fraud that has been defined to me in the interviews that i've done with usda employees and to the extent that as i said, african-american employees of the farm service administration who worked within the offices presumably if they worked there they weren't going to allow themselves to be discriminated against, and if they'd never farmed and never filed an application but received a check anyway, it was pretty clear that there's levels of fraud that need to be exposed. and so, madam speaker, there's much to be said about pigford two. it is not a consent decree. there's only an agreement that has been negotiated between tom

vilsack and eric holder and john boyd. they've negotiated that agreement, they've negotiated the amount, they've succeeded in getting it passed -- past the senate and after the senate reached a point of exhaustion fighting it, she did pass it through the house after vociferous objections, but with bipartisan objection, southern democrats voting no. not urban but southern democrats voting no. and it's on its way and we're pretty sure the president will find it because after all it's been his baby since he was in the united states senate. really odd that a man from chicago would take such an interest in an issue that he can't have personal experience with, not having personal experience that we know of in the rural areas. and here we are, madam speaker, anticipating the president will sign it. when he does, if and when he

does, then i believe he will take it before the same judge that started out pigford one opinion with these words, 40 acres and a mule, and laments that he can't fix all of the problems of slavery and segregation in one class action suit. well, he's got a second one now. likely to come to him, i'm pretty sure judge friedman will approve this. and i'm really confident that secretary of agriculture and if you can get the attorney general to speak will say that they put all kinds of safeguards in here, safeguards like lawyers have to sign off. yeah, well they had to sign off in the first one, too. and that really didn't resolve this issue. it's just to the best of their knowledge, they think it's true. it's not a very strong statemt. there's no requirement for evidence. they did put some language in there that allows the administrators, if they think there's fraud, to ask more questions and require more documentation. ok. but if they're instructed not to think there's fraud, they're not going to find fraud. this administration doesn't think there's fraud or they'd be

looking for it. it's amazing to me. 18,000 black farmers, 94,000 claims. even if you presume that 100% of the black farmers were discriminated against, we've still got 4 1/2 claims for every black farmer. how does this work? it must be fraud. it can't be described any other way. and the percentages of these claims, there's no question that comes out of this administration, out of the white house, or the department of agriculture, or the attorney general's office, they're not saying, well, we're looking into the fraud, they're saying, if it exists, it's so low that it's really not an issue. but we're going to satisfy your concerns by having an i.g. report come out in six months. money's gone, you won't be able to get it back, if you're going to learn something about how to protect against fraud in pigford two, let's look at pigford one. we've already got the data. let's dig into it. that's what i think we have to do, is dig into both. and we owe it to the american people not to be paying out 40

acres and a mule. you cannot right wrongs from a century and a half ago. but if they were righted, abraham lincoln told us how. for every drop of blood that were drawn by the lash will be paid by one drawn by the sword. that's done, that's behind us. we have an american future that can't be paying modern day slavery reparations, thinking we compensate what took place in the past. we have a future to worry about. let's make sure everybody has equal opportunity and let's build for the fowture -- future. madam speaker, i see my friend from texas has arrived on the floor. judge gohmert. and when judge glow merit comes to the floor i know that there's some real important input that the american people need to hear as he addresses you, madam speaker. so i would yield so much time as he may consume to the gentleman from texas and note that it appears there's maybe 13 to 15 minutes remaining in the time. i'd yield the gentleman from texas. mr. gohmert: my new friend from iowa has made some really

important points. but it seems to be part of a pattern of what we have seen for the last four years, of the majority here in the house dividing america, playing class envy, trying to just really take place -- it's not robin hood because robin hood took money back from people that stole it to give it back to the people who had actually generated the money. so i know there's some friends across the aisle that think they're being a bit of robin hood but they need to understand robin hood better. they didn't take from people that earned the money, they took from people that basically stole it and gave it back to the people that generated it. and yet that's the kind of stuff that we see going on. there's so much fraud in

medicare, there's so much fraud, waste and abuse in the government itself and yet still we hear this class envy being trumpeted. i know my friend from iowa agrees 100% with me. if anybody in america makes more money, they should pay more income tax. if you had a flight income tax that would be the case. the more money you make, the more you pay. but you do have people like the renowned warren buffet who is saying he ought to pay more taxes, that many people like him pay less money in income tax than somebody making $30,000, $40,000. because they've got all kinds of great ways to get around having to pay taxes. but i just am so deeply grieved to my soul that this class envy that's being played up by people across the aisle to avoid

helping the economy, by giving some certainty to people who are wondering whether they'll be able to afford to hire people right now, when it comes january 1, because they know the capital gains rates are going up, every marginal rate is going up, it is outrageous that we've played games for two years now, four years under this majority and we have done nothing to give certainty to employers so that people will not have to file suit to try to get a job, they'll be -- there will be jobs created because there's that know about job creation know the old saying, a capital is a coward, capital where it feels safest, but to feel safe, investment placed where

there is certainty under the law that's why it is not pulling into mexico because they don't know who is in charge, who is going to be killed, who is corrupted, so all the business needing to know is there going to be some certainty. to go taxes going through the roof january 1 as hey are currently scheduled to do. and the fact that this majority would play this kind of gamesmanship and class warfare are out of work and they need jobs and there would be no better christmas than to have a job for christmas. but we have this will tremendously high rate of unemployment and particularly when you figure those who are underemployed and yet this majority is still, even now in december we are still not willing to just say across the

board, we are not going to create tax cuts. that's not even out there, but just extend the curnt tax rate. we aren't going to play class warfare, of course the people who make more money should pay taxes and that's why the rate is 35% instead of 10% at the lowest rate. and so, it just grieves me. i know people that are out of work and i know there are people that i've talked to who say i have to find out what my taxes are going to be, what the tax rate is going to be, because if it's going up, i can't hire anybody. if it's going to stay where it is, i can hire some people. now that's a merry christmas when you give people a job. you eliminate the class warfare going on in this body and just

say, forget the games, this is too serious. we are playing with people's lives tired of the gamesmanship, forget the federal government, just get out of the way so we can create jobs in america and have people back to work and still, unless my friend from iowa knows different, as far as i know, we aren't taking up as we did on monday, we congratted some people, we named a post office and did a bunch of stuff yesterday, nothing breathtaking, child nutrition act, we're going to run up the federal government costs, why not give these people an opportunity to have a job so their own for nutrition. but as far as i know, the tax

extension at the current rate across the board is not coming up tomorrow. may not come up friday. we don't know when it's coming up. and so any way, as i think about i know who don't have jobs and the people i know that would hire people if they knew that the tax rates were not going up, i just had to point it out one more time on our friends the aisle, please don't leave another day leaving the tax rates in limbo. give some certainty. allow jobs to be created that are not government jobs. and i yield back to my friend. you know when this is going to come up. mr. king: reclaiming my time and thanking my friend from texas and i appreciate the subject matter that you brought here to the floor tonight and i would add to this. not only do we need to continue the tax rates that we have

today, i would make them permanent so there are sernts and be able to plan businesses jobs and plan for the future, but there is another one that hangs over the head of many families today and that is the estate tax and that is the most ominous of them all. if we aren't able to reach an agreement by the end of this lame duck session, we are just in the condition that we're in today and that there is no certainty and that $1 trillion or $2 trillion doesn't get released and invested into our that's bad, but another month of it -- we have seen a lot of months of it. another month of it doesn't devastate us meetly. and i know people will be sitting around figuring out we can add on to this production line and make this operation go a new business over

here, that won't happen -- that will happen if we can get the breaks made permanent and the repeedyated congress. another month isn't as bad what happens if we go another month with the estate tax hangg over is, because way it i will tell you what will happen is, there will be thousands of americans that are lying on their death bed, some in hoicesround the country, beds and some decisions made by them and their families and they will say, they have had a lot of life behind them and knowing they don't have much ahead of them and they will put me on life support or life-saving treatment, let me pass away in 2010 because if

that happens, you will get the full inheritance. and that's what they will tell them and they'll make that and tell their loved ones, don't extend my life, don't give me an extra way to feed me, put me in hospice now and let me slowly die. that is what will be said over again. there are those that will go further. there are those who will want to end their life so their children don't have to pay an estate tax of $1 million exemption and after that, up to 55% tax. i can tell you, madam speaker, ow that works in the neighborhood where i live. let's say there is somebody who old and bought some land early on in life and leveraged and bought another piece of land and several sections are paid for. square miles, 640

acres and that's the nest egg that they worked all their life. paid the tax on the income and retired the principal and paid there it sits for their children. maybe they have five children bed and pass th away in the first second of 2011, by the way there will be death certificates back timed poost midnight. two sections of land, five kids and they pass away in the first second of 2011 and the death certificatetive indicate says so, here is what the says so you can take one section out of 55% tax to pay the tax tax. ay the death one whole section of land, one square mile to pay the federal

government. the second component of that is the section of land that is split up five ways because of the five kids. so what they have is two sections of land, one that is essentially debt free because the other one is gone to pay the taxes and gets split five waist and can't buy that land back and keep it intact. it takes a long time to put the unit together, building site together, the grain and livestock and all the pieces to doesn't work to say this is the land that is same or this is half the size. so it wipes out both sections of land. they wipe out a whole legacy death tax, the a bell tolls on the death tax on mid yite december 31 and it is for this nscionable congress not to address that before this time. of the clock re

and the duties that we all have here, i want to thank my friend from texas for coming to the floor and volunteering that i appreciate and your indulgence this evening and privilege to address you on the floor of the house of representatives. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair will entertain a motion to adjourn. the house do ve now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to.

>> live coverage when the house returns come here and c-span. the national debt commission released its final report today for reducing the national debt. that hearing is next on c-span. after that, the chairman of the federal communications commission outlines a plan for regulating high-speed broadband data networks. later, the head of the national counter-terrorism center talked about the affects of the release

of government documents by wikileaks and how it could affect counter-terrorism efforts. >> the white house has released the report on the possibility of ending "don't ask, don't tell." on the c-span video library, search the arguments for and against. >> tomorrow, a senate panel will examine the pentagon "don't ask, don't tell" report on the potential for allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military. gates, mullin, and hamm and will testify. coverage begins at 6:00 p.m. on c-span3 the deficit reduction report lays out a blueprint for reducing the national deficit by

nearly $4 trillion. in order for the proposal to be submitted to congress, 14 of the 18 members of the commission needo agree with the plan. the final vote on the proposal was pushed back to friday. this is 2.5 hours. >> good morning. i will not transgress too much on your time or patience. this great and good man beside me, although we are of the other faith, is a person i trust implicitly, a man of his word, a friend, and a patriot. when my pal joe biden called in january and said, "i have a real deal for you," i chuckled and i said, "forget it."

he called back, because i feel when the president of united states asks a citizen to use your services, you step up, in the overused term of the day, especially in athletics. when i asked who would be my cochair, they said erksine bowles, and i signed on. let me say it has been a great treat. let me say this to my 12 legislative colleagues. a cautionary tale. i have been where you are. i feel your pain, in the words of a former president. [laughter] and the heat is on you. this one is on you. and poised outside of this chamber are the denizens of darkness. i think the workers of the dark

arts, in the words of harry potter. those are the groups waiting out there in temples around the city to shred this baby to bits. and they are ready. they have been waiting for a long time to to this one to pieces. to tell you to do this or don't do this, or there may be less cash in your christmas stocking at your next election, or a black lung -- a black lump of coal. they are geared up to destroy this work. that is how the city works. it works on negatives and not positives. that i share with you. and i know about this because i have been there. i know the feeling. and in the role of leadership that i held, i had to hold my nose and voted a damn bad one

time or two. unfortunately, my friend richard durbin holds the role i had, assistant majority leader, and slipping to assistant minority leader, which he is hoping does not occur, i know. nevertheless, these groups consist often of zealots. as a look is one who, having forgotten his purpose, and redoubles his efforts. there are many of them here. these groups have called up their artillery and fires -- and fired some heavy shells at this old infantrymen here and my colleague. and will pull out all the stops with massive expenditures of media and advertising. and these ads will be dramatic, powerful, and heart wrenching. but try to pay them no heed, because these purveyors of doom have been working here for many years.

they are like the man behind the curtain in "the wizard of oz." they get paid big money to lobby and get you all worked up. and so they will have a list. and you can pick one. just run through a few. "treading the safety net -- shredding the safety net, punishing seniors, helping the rich, hurting the rich, raising taxes, not raising taxes enough, cutting taxes, cutting too much." the list goes on and on. these are tough times, requiring tough decisions and indeed tough votes.

it took many weeks to establish trust between us. trust is the golden currency of legislation, and it has been tarnished here in recent years. rexene -- erksine and i will not plead with you to support this legislation. we hope you will, but it is your choice. i have seen many commissions in the past which come up with decisions, directors, and solutions that are fruitless exercises, that are pure mush or watery gruel. whether we get two boats are 18, this baby is not going away.

it may be buried in an unmarked grave soon, but when the votes for the budget, to extend the debt limit -- the debate on that comes up in the spring -- this cadaver will rise from the crypt. and you are some or your colleagues will say in the face of the new faces who will be saying, "i am not voting to increase the debt limit unless i get some spending cuts and a lot more" -- and the leadership of both parties will say, "but we have to do this, or the full faith and credit of the u.s. will be imperiled. we may even have to close down the government." some sincere new member honestly will say, "that is why i came here." that is what is out there. and the spending cuts will be presented by them. and they will be ones that have been selected at random, that have no basis in debate or

discussion of like we may have discussed here in these recent months. the members will be coded to support those. not ones that have been worked through the process here and thought fully debated, whether you agree with them or not. and i think that will be a chaotic time and even a blood bath. and i think americans deserve better. and this plan is a better way. it is an amalgam, a partial consensus in some ways. at least a plan. at least it is a start. you may have noted that jan schakowsky and i have not always concurred. she is the canary in the coal mine in my activities. i admire her. she had the courage to lay out an alternate plan of how to get there. so did north dakota. i do not agree with it all, -- so did andy.

i do not agree with it all, but she laid it out, and so did he. "don't reject, reflect" would be a good model in this town. just relax. there are only three more handwritten pages. don't tell my arm. a final note. things in this world have dramatically shifted, shifted on this planet that we all survive on. things are very different than there were two to three years ago. we all know the figures and we all know the math. the fact will be is this is it. no more fun and games, smoke and mirrors, alchemy, trickery, demagoguery, and making promises which cannot make. that denial has gone the way of the dodo bird. these are not normal times for

normal solutions. that is what they do here it is non-solutions. i remember when i was anguishing over a tough senate bowed i had to cast and would not let me about maybe, -- i remember when i was anguishing over a tough senate vote i had to cast and would not let me vote maybe, i made a press release that if only "section so and so" was left out, i would vote for it, but i did not think my constituents would let me get away with that. the constituents have wised up. they are men. they are tired of the bluster and leather, the ego and p.b.s. -- the b.s. that has worked so often for us, including me, the master of it. the times have changed and will never be the same.

the tectonic plates of the old politics have shifted. they know what debt and deficit is an interest. in their own homes, they have pondered the plight around their own kitchen table, there had in their hands. they say everyone is taking a hit. all of us took a hit but one -- the federal government. all of its massive minions have been scared in this recession. we have seen the figures. we do not know a lot about greece, ireland, spain, portugal, and italy. but we do know that if you stay this way something bad will happen. these deeply concerned straight thinking and straight talking folks in another country is on the same trajectory. -- know what their country -- straight talking folks know this on the sameis

trajectory. it will be only you can fix this. not the president, joe biden, or anyone else can write this listing ships -- right this listing ship. only you and your colleagues in both parties will have to do this task. you and no one else. do what you need to do. do what you must do, guided by your own conscience and principles and a shred of patriotism. whichever way you go, share it with us in your report in the appendix. tell us why you do not like it and voted no, and tell us what you did like it and voted yes. those are the only ways out. those are honest ways. i admire and respect to all. you need not comment on your final vote, come this friday. we have listened, visited, negotiated, debated, and discussed all of these issues

before us. and i think all of us have done our level best and then some. and i want to render defense thanks for your energy, your time, and your talent, and those same attributes of your fine staffs. god bless you. i yield to the numbers guy. fog them up, william -- will ya? [laughter] >> i love being a numbers guy. thank you, al. my daddy used to say that true friends are hard to find. they are even harder to make. if i have got nothing else out of this last eight months, i have gotten a real friend in how simpson -- hal simpson. that is a rarity, and i am grateful. the couple of weeks ago, it seems like years ago now, we got

a little at more attention than i thought we might. it probably deserved it. you know, in the chairman's report, we take $4 billion out of a deficit over the next nine years. we cut the deficit in half by 2015, and by three-quarters in 2020. we take the deficit to gdp down to about 2.2% of gdp in 2015. the president asked us to get 3%, and we get it down to 1.2% in 2020. i think we can all be proud of that. i can tell you that if al travels through airports he gets more thumbs up than he does other digits. from my viewpoint, i usually go to the liquor store when i leave here.

but when i go to the grocery store, here is what people in north carolina tell me. 100%, i do not care who they are, they say stay strong. do not without on this. get that deficit down. that is what we will do regardless of the vote. you all have been great. i have never been involved in a more non-partisan -- this is not bipartisan. this is non-partisan. i have spent more time in tom coburn's congress room than i have my own house, i think, in the last eight months. he has become my friend and my doctor in this time. . -- in this timeperiod. [laughter] all of you have been as polite about this document as you can. there are some things you like. there are something to dislike. senator durbin said there are

some things in this original draft that the devil would hate more than a holy water. that is as much as somebody can dislike something. but everybody has said, including the folks at the white house, this is serious. it was a good starting point. i want to thank you all for treating it as such. no matter what happens, i think this little commission of 18 people that have now been meeting for the last eight months to nine months has succeeded. we have fundamentally changed the debate in america. all you have to do is look around this room and you can see that. we put the debt issue on the map. i think we owe an enormous debt of gratitude to senators greg andconrad = -- gregg conrad. they have been phenomenal. the wanted there to be a legislative process. they got as this commission. that has called this issue to the attention of america.

i think you to. -- i thank you two. [applause] i do not know if we can agree on a plan. i am an optimist. i always have been. i know we will get two votes. maybe we will get five. maybe we will get 14. nothing would surprise me in this. but i know the world is moving in our direction. for better or for worse, because of what you see going around the world today, if you see what you read in today's newspapers. i do know there is no turning back now. the era of that denial -- debt denial and denial of its consequences is over. each of you can take enormous pride in that. together, we have started an adult conversation that will dominate the debate until the elected leadership here in washington does something real. i can tell you as a state

employee, the states have been doing something real. we had to balance our budgets. that has meant very, very painful cuts for us that the university. municipalities all over the country have. businesses are. every family does its sitting around their kitchen table. i think washington is going to get on board. i think it is impossible reve gotten some nice views. i could go on and on. we did not get in this for nice

editorialists. we did this to make a difference for this country and that will make as competitive. i think the american people want us to do something real. they want this to make the tough decisions. none of these decisions are easy. their problems are real. there is no easy way out. elected officials have been wary they would be punished if they made the tough decisions. i think we will be penalized if they play politics, which none of the have, if we'd duck the tough calls or take a walk. impand i are not going to wum out. for us, it is go big or go home.

we are going home anyway, right? we want a serious proposal. we are not interested in 14 votes. this is too plain big and important for our country. this plan is one that we are proud of. we believe it will keep our nation from falling into the abyss created by promises that are bigger than our nation can keep and created by way too much leverage. i have lived in a world where there is reversed leverage. i have lived in the world to compound interest rates. you cannot beat it. it is tough. it'll bring you down fast. i want to go through the plant. -- plans.

you want to hear what each of you think. none of you got the plan until late yesterday morning. i have helped write the final plan that i have not read through the final plan. we will not ask you to vote today on something tonight a you have not thoroughly previewed. they may want to express their opinions. we want to have your response by friday in here where each of you stand on the plan. i do not expect any of you to like every aspect. i do not like every aspect predicted to vote, each of us will have to tolerate provisions of the oppose in order to reach

a principled compromise. we will have to put our differences aside. our nation will be lost if we do not have one we do not pretend we do have one. we do not pretend to have all the answers. we have a proposal as serious as the problems we face in this nation. the plan is built around basic principles. this has not been a county exercise for us. it this is about america being competitive. it is about pulling together. we do not want to do anything to disrupt the fragile economic

recovery. we want to protect the disadvantaged. we do not want to hollow out this country well be fakes our balance sheet. we will continue to make smart investment. there are one of what went garbles trillion -- one poi $1 trillion with a pair marks in this tax cut. -- 1.1 trillion of earmarks in

this tax cuts. if we eliminate them, we can bring rates weighed down to areas like 8%, 14%. we can reduce the corporate rate. we can simplify the code. we think there should be a ceiling of revenues of 21%. we want to keep social security solvent.

our plan reduces it. it takes the deficit to gdp ratio down to 2.3%. we put forward over $200 billion in cuts of we the devised it and

gi. we want to make sure the spending cuts are on both sides profe. we budget $11 million. we will have disasters. we came up with it because it is the average of the last 10 years. we tightened the provisions. we tightened the provisions for what can be called for an emergency. we did the same thing for a oco. we tightened the provision significantly for what goes into that budget. we required a 60 vote. of order. it still be -- 60 votes point of

order. it will be there. we are record and a zero plan which i think we have gotten good response from democrats and republicans. we are not the ways and means committee. the principles are to broaden the base, a lower the rates, simplify the code, and me to use the deficit. in no case to want to see the rates go above 29%.

congress can choose to add back key provisions as it relates to the earned income tax credit. they are not for free. there is a

there are a exclusions purdah we say if what you had does not work, america must take more drastic steps. we have to control the rate of increase in get it down. we would recommend that if that happens that congress to get the

premium support plan. we have a robust public option. it shares a benefit design. we give them the authority to be more active you are going to have to do something really tough if what we say works does not work. other mandatory changes reduce the deficit relates to the federal workforce retirement plan. we eliminate in school subsidies we give the board authority to increase premiums

will eliminate payments we extend the sec authority. we restructured the power to market rates. we give the post office greater management ability so we do not have the deficits of budget for the it is closing post offices in this time of the electronic mail. we do to things that make our job more difficult.

we raise the minimum payment that someone can get. you were told that he had to take care of the old people .etween 82 and 86 bur that makes their job more difficult. we do have longevity currently, social security age goes to 67 and 2027.

i hope this gives people time to be prepared. we also take up the early retirement age. because they do that, some people are in physically demanding. we have a hardship exemption. this reflects inflation. we bring in new state them were callelocal workers.

our plan takes it to 100. >> you pick us a plan that is important for the nation. the want to thank my partner.

senator gregg will be a mistake. and i deeply appreciate. the staff has worked so hard i know you have worked weekends and nights. you have worked long hours. i think he had demonstrated through commitment. [applause]

toomey this is a defining moment. -- toomey this is a defining moment. american is in trouble. this commission has been given a very serious responsibility.

there are things and this plan that i think our home runs for the economy. i enter stands -- i understand this. some have not had the chance to fully review it. i am prepared to make a decision for them. i do not see another alternative propos

plan restores the solvency of social security. it is not take the savings and applied in to the deficit prevent it is done separately. this plan calls for fundamental forms for the to help make it more competitive.

when you reduce the option and the opportunity to gain the system, you are going to generate more revenue. i said earlier there things i do not like. everyone of us can find those we do not like. i think this is a critically important moment. whether or not we get 14 votes, i think this will provide a guide post for decisions that must be made. verot the sooner they are made, the better for this country.

if seeing ireland, greece, and portugal, possibly spain -- if we fail to act now, our country could find yourself in a circumstance in which we have to pay it draconian action at the worst possible time. i pray to god we had the wisdom to act before that point. >> thank you. this has been intense. it has been so informative.

i congratulate you for your leadership and tremendous benefit. i also went to think folks to a ban on the commission. it is pretty powerful. the thought process is extraordinary. this is aboutus, america's greatness. how could such a get such trouble? how could we be on the path that is going to drive us there, to some form of bankruptcy?

it children the lifestyle of every american. . it is about where we go as a country. we have a responsibility to not let this happen the cannot deny the fax. we are on a chorourse. behind our government is growing at a rate that is unaffordable. the fact is it the continues on the course, prosperity will be jeopardized. we will be the first to pass this burd.

the american culture demands that the next generation have more opportunities. that is the essence. this is really about america's greatness. this product is not perfect or global. it just allows us to put in place a path away that says to americans that we are serious about doing something with the problem president. this is way above our historical position.

it is a package which does make a definitive step in the right direction. it does to them and reduce the deficit and debt. it does bring down the deficit. from the spending side, i think republicans will be pretty big. this is rather dramatic. a lot of folks will be upset about the changes. there is a lot of tax policy in this bill.

i have found it unconscionable delhi debate about raising rates. that is not the issue. we should be debating about reducing rates. how do you do it in a way that produces economic growth? this proposal is driven by tax policy that takes this and put it into what i think is the proper playing field. it is the old cement arms

terrorists -- it is the ultimate on the sterilanoids. it did a lot to get it down. i think we did the zero plan, and it would be fair. this is where the debate should be prepared. they get in the process.

even though there will be heartbreak, it is the right debate. he has driven the effort to recognize the regular order social security has been set up here. they are only for five moving parts and social security. the issue of spending is moving

dramatically in the right direction for them the of this year -- direction. the other issue remains healthcare. we've reached a point for the first time in government. >> thank you for the

extraordinary job that you did. i cannot think of a major effort on capitol hill that has been so thinly but well staffed. i congratulate you for gathering some of the most extraordinary minds. it is honest and addresses the challenges. it has never been referred to.

i want to thank my colleagues. i will miss you. we are a great leader in the senate. i am led to inspired us to sit together. we need to be here. thank you for bringing us to this moment. we all go to work here every day. you really bad to this conversation. as of this for the first time this morning.

what would an american family do? when they are making hard choices, it usually does not include cutting off the insulin for gramm operetta we believe any crisis america faces will require shared sacrifice. this is the standard i use.

i understand when you talk about lower tax rates, we have times of economic expansion. i believe those who have been blessed paying more. there are several things that concern me. thank you for what you did on these tax expenditures. i had been in congress for 20

years. we have never had this conversation. legists make modifications and the tax code them as people never read or understand they think it doesn't have an impact. it does. it is fair for us to step back and saying if you eliminated all of them, would america's or families better off? i think that is a fair question we have to make a choice. we need to save money in the process. i was around from the reform social security in 1983. we had 50 years a solvency with

some painful choices. what you have suggested this acceptable to me. to raise it two years over 60 years is not a radical. providing for those in manual labor and those in need to require -- retire our for the older people on social security who need a helping hand. these things are sensible. >> your time has expired. >> i expected that.

i happen to believe as a subcommittee chair the what is written here is not correct. you argued that it saves $60 billion. that reflects fundamental misunderstanding of how it works. i am given a mark. new kmbc you can appropriate of to the mark. -- they say you can appropriate that market. i can have congressional interested spending. it is within the mark. if you are putting a cap, it will receive it. it is already established for th there is no $16 billion in savings by eliminating it. i have been through these

chapters that involve term limits. i am glad to eliminated caps. the changes to remain are esoteric to most the people following is. they have been analyzed to increase the cost of medical care. they have said this to establish that prepare. it allows congressman ryan of a voucher system per them we

discussed why they have been selected. at seventh that the proposals on health care, we are hastening the day when it led there. we are going to limit the deductions for premiums. we will limit what they pay for federal employees. we will find ourselves or we have no alternative. i have to embrace the public option for them.

>> i mentioned in my travels that countries are able to back to a collective purpose. we are being watched by countries with similar problems. we can no longer rally americans.

i do not believe anyone is giving them the facts. they had a national debt before the recession and $6 trillion. 45% of our debt is held outside the united states with about $1 trillion lead to less by china. the debt grows to 20 trillion in 2020. 10 years from now, our interest wille the year.

it is there for some of the wrong reasons catafalqu while important, these are all side shows asleep accumulate $20 trillion avoid next 10 years. as we move through social security, we will crash the system.

it increases above 4% a year. it is about 3% and what was planned. i honestly do not know how you can eared jobs done with the yelling and screaming that goes on. the second is that we can wait for the bond market. we can ask them what this is like.

many people have a hard time relating to what the bond market is a wide they should be concerned. about $4 trillion are dead today is money loaned to us by foreign countries. $1 trillion is lintas by china. -- are on loan to us by china provocativ what happens and we are not viewed that way anymore and? we have to raise the price we pay to attract the loans in any from foreign countries.

it hurts the very people we think we are protecting. when the decline does come, it does not come in small, monthly doses. it happens overnight. the american public deserves better. i do not like everything in this proposal. i do not think it is big enough. weeny to start somewhere. there is plenty of opportunity to demonstrate the political will.

we cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good. what i am enamored of everything, i believe this is a time for us to pull together as a country. i know we do not officially boat until friday. vote until friday. i am your third boavote. >> thank you. >> i want to commend the staff

for having done all this work putting together a serious plan. i think it is a serious plan to address what i regard as a clear and urgent threat of going forward. we could have very quickly -- when they happen, if they happen fast. we do not want to put ourselves in a position where it could happen.

we have to protect low income people. we also have to rethink what happens to them if we have another economic catastrophe. the best thing we can do for those in america is to have a prosperous high-growth economy and not another crisis. i believe these are the choices that we have. everyone said there is a lot of pain here. there is. there is a lot of opportunity. can we see the opportunity to give this a more appropriate tax system t?

there is the opportunity to to read spending. camry sees these opportunities? we could have a higher growth and more efficient economy. this is not my favorite set of options. i am going to vote for it. i will also give you a list of things. i would have liked to see some of front stimulus. i would have shifted the balance away from so many spending cuts.

i'm a little nervous about the timing. this is a very serious plan for doing with a catastrophe. i hope the start this on a path toward a solution before it is too late. >> thank you. >> i want to tell you what an honor it has been forming. well we have disagreed on a number of things, there are a number of things with which i do agree i hope that i can support.

the tax expenditures -- i was somewhat surprised that defense cuts were on the table at thing there was a consensus around the spread them -- around them. and makes what we have done very constructive. i agree with the principles that were laid out. i do agree that we are on an unsustainable physical path. one way it can be defined is the deficit in the debt.

i laid out a plan where we can reach primary budgets. the other where we can measure it is the prosperity in the united states of america. i think it is a problem that we face. i do not feel this proposal addresses the dual problems in the proper way. i agree that we need to have more significant investment right now. when we get our economy moving, we are decreasing the deficit. there'll be more people working

and buying. i think there is a different perception of what it does for economic growth. it still make sure they can go out and the customers. this is what will drive expansion of business. the top 1% of americans to own 34% of america's private net worth right now. the bottom 90% owns just 29%. it costs 1%. it controls 24% of americans' income in 2007. it lists 30 fours term -- 24%

now. we are seeing a rapid explansion ng the wealthy. the top-10 some controls more than 70% of america's network. only one in five working americans enjoy guaranteed pension benefits. they are worried about social security being fair. these are rapidly disappearing. there will be more focus for robust social security. we talk about shared sacrifice. the numbers indicate that sacrifice has not been shared.

some people have lost and others have gained. we are not starting at the same point. we have more than 37 million americans living in poverty. most of them have jobs. these are the working poor. the elderly have an average income of $18,000 a year. we will reduce the deficit by as the benefit serious to pay more

for their health care. i think it is unconscionable to have more money come out. i said medicare should negotiate for low prescription drug prices. drugs are a fraction of the cost. there is very little control here.

the cochairs are not part of the deficit problem the chief actuary has pointed out the proposals they have made. they can lose more than 20% of the benefits. the cost-of-living adjustment, recalculating, means a significant cut in benefits. i proposed a different way of

achieving the solvency. when we talk about cuts in discretionary spending, it caps how much comes from revenue in paid them i do not understand why we do that. we will see programs cut that address the problem of those people who have not been part of the party that the wealthiest americans have benefited from over the years. and so i cannot for the reasons of equity, of our democracy, of our fiscal path in terms of real live people, support this proposal.

thank you. >> i want to thank you for presenting an alternative plan which you do support, which does address this crisis. this is a crisis we have to address so thank you for your constructive approach. congressman ryan. >> you have done a tremendous job with a difficult challenge. you and your staff, some of us have been in budgets for a long time. i want to take a digression. this is the last time i will be setting at a table with my friend john. you are a great guy.

it has been a privilege to serve in congress with you. we agree and everything. you have my respect. thank you for what you have done for our country. thank you. [applause] this commission has been a success. if they label various proposals as too draconian or austere, there will have to come up with our own. if anything, this has been successful because it has helped us move this conversation to the adult level than it needed to go to. regardless of what happens, if you get these 14 votes or not, you should go home proud of what you've done to advance this debate and put ideas on the table. we have a choice which is are we going to confront this and leave the nation better off or not?

we have different opinions about how to do that. you have done a lot to events that debate. let me go through what i do like about this. it is important to see some positive things. i do like the fact that we're sending to get some consensus. on not revenue levels, but on rates. lower rates and a broader tax base leads to economic growth and job creation and international competitiveness. if anything, the concept that tax reform ought to be moved with such a reform is something that is incredibly important. the best way to do with this problem in my opinion is spending control and reform and economic growth. economic growth comes from a more competitive tax system. a broader tax base. you have done a great job. i like the process reforms. there is some bills -- reforms

in this bill. some great budget reforms, what we call the belts and suspenders approach. that is pretty good. social security. you have advance the ball and got us toward a better conversation on making social security solvent. this does not contribute to the debt deficit reduction. everyone gets 22% across the board benefit cut. that ought to be avoided. there is discretionary savings. not as many as i would like. not occurring as soon as i would like. you are moving the ball forward on the fact we cannot keep throwing the special -- discretionary spending. what i want to say is there is ideas in here that are worth copying and borrowing and putting into this next year budget which i intend to do. what are my concerns?

my primary concern is health care. i do not believe this fixes the problem. our debt problem is the health- care problem. gao give us a new number of a week or two ago that says we have an 88.6 trillion dollar unfunded liability primarily stemming from are federally funded programs. this does not address that in my opinion. senator durbin said it right. we're hastening the day when the option is the public option. you are right. this defense is that possibility. that is one of the reasons i have a problem. let me go to taxes or baselines. when we look at spending cuts and revenue increases, you have to do so relative to a baseline. baseline conversations can get esoteric and confusing. the budget matters. it is important to understand

what baseline is being used. we set up late last night going through these numbers. the base line follows the present's budget. both in revenues and spending. think that leads to a tax increase. he also included -- increases of base defense and does not [unintelligible] which leads to an increase in spending. this is another way of looking at these issues. using this baseline in excluding debt service. this proposal cut spending by about $2 for every $1 in revenue increases under baseline i would consider more plausible. a cbo base current policy baseline. these numbers would be reversed. $2 in tax increases for $1 in spending cuts is how we look at these numbers. i would like to share this with your staff and maybe we could go through this before friday.

it is important to note that we have got to grow this economy and we have to get a good down payment on taxes and spending now. you cannot fix this problem. you are delaying it if you do not tackle health care. i understand the position you were put in. your president's appointees create this commission. he passed through health care law that i am sure you are not going to want to undo. that does not mean that those of us who do not have a problem with the law want to sign up for something we think advances that law. that is why some of us have some concerns. let me finish on a positive note. you are to be commended. this is a serious effort in serious proposal. i appreciate the contributions you do. thank you. >> you have been extremely

constructive. i have become a real admirer. thank you for your help. thank you. you could have hit the reply button. i will take the privilege of saying much of what he said. i want to add my voice of praise to our cochairs. i think that this effort in some respects has been challenged by the design of this commission. i think just a quick -- juxtaposed against the recent debate over national health care, it has been challenged by timing. it has not been challenged by leadership. we have exceptional leadership

that this effort. both of you are to be commended. the thing i like the most about your plan is it is a plan. there are not a lot of them out there to address the crisis. as we continue to use the word unsustainable, in describing our nation's fiscal path, unsustainable is understated. i think we all know that. when the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff says that our greatest threat to our national security is our debt, it should be a sobering wake-up call to every american. and so, again, i applaud you for putting a plan on the table. any american who understands the crisis has a responsibility to sign up for some plant, to be in

favor of something. i have come to this table, being one of the few and proud to program forls's america's future. i have supported an amendment to the constitution and a number of proposals, some of which ended up in your proposal from the spending deficit and get control act that paul and i have worked on. i think there has been challenges to the commission. if i recall right, you said that this was part of an adult conversation. i do agree it was one of the few adults conversations about this crisis i have been able to participate in. i would like to say that again, i did not need to act gopal in all regards, i have this, and in my note. the other adult conversation about this crisis that i have

participated in have been led by the chairman of south carolina. he is a man who has rarely -- he has not commanded my acquiescence. he has always commanded my respect. he has been an important voice in this national debate. as he exits congress, i hope and pray he does not exit the national debate on our nation's fiscal future. >> i believe that ultimately as we look at our nation's deficit, the deficit is the symptom, spending is the disease. as i look at the plant, and i will try to be brief. i will talk about what i see is the good and bad.

i believe an important part of this debate is the recognition that by broadening the tax base -- a tax base, we can promote economic growth and we can promote jobs. bringing down the corporate tax rate to something i believe close to the median of the eu is an important part of this debate. i know we do not employ a dynamic scoring. i know we cannot grow our way out of this crisis. i believe if we did employed dynamic scoring, this would be not insignificant -- in not insignificant part of this solution. i would applaud you for that. with respect to social security, i believe in personal accounts. i want to use the power of compound interest to grow our way out of this. that is not in this plan.

having said that, i would be more than satisfied to say -- save social security for the next couple of generations. and support the proposals that you have included in this plan. i have been picketed before for my views in trying to save current entitlement programs for future generations. i am happy to do it again. i am prepared to do it again. i continue to have concern about the tax portion of this. concerning a couple of different ways. i do not favor any tax increases. as we know and -- under cbo, taxes will increase as a percentage of gdp. that is given. the taxes are going up.

that is number one. ultimately, even though you put a revenue cap, we do not have a global expense cap. the cost of government is what it spends, not what it taxes. that is one of my greatest reservations of the plan. something i hope we could have achieved. i do not -- i am not sure he will -- we will solve the problem. the third challenge is the history. if i believe the increased revenue would be used for deficit reduction, i might come to the table in a global agreement. when i look at andrews air force base, it seems to me that somehow the spending restraint never quite materializes and the

increased revenues due. it seems like the increased revenues chase more spending. personally, i believe, to quote or paraphrase winston churchill who said that americans can be counted on to do the right thing when they have exhausted every possibility. we have put a spending cap on -- i am not sure the right things get done. if taxes are going to be put on the table, i believe health care will be put on the table. there's a lot of expertise at this table. i studied these issues as a member and as a senate staffer for seven years. i cannot come to any other conclusion. you're not fixing the problem. i do not believe health care is here. i understand the timing has been poor. what we passed in congress is

part of the solution. there are those of us who feel strongly it is part of the problem. i believe that also when you juxtapose what you are doing on the tax expenditure side which is good, i would agree with senator durbin who is no longer here. you are hastening more people into the public option. something that many of us on this side of the aisle do not relish. ultimately, we must reform the current entitlement programs and grandfather of the grandparents. my a -- i'm willing to put defense on the table. i do not want to see any tax increases, but if they are on the table, health care has got to be on the table. i will end on this note. i am paraphrasing. being thehe verge of first generation in america's

history to destroy the american dream. i do not believe the american dream is homeownership. it is letting your -- leaving our children with greater freedom and a higher standard of living. every generation in our country has kept faith with the american dream. i do not know if this is the grand bargain. it is not, the grand bargain should come soon. i would remind all, i do not know of this is 16 or protein or 10 votes. i have lost count of how many votes you have. i do not know if you'll get my vote. i would say this. nothing prevents our leaders from bringing this plan to the floor. there is nothing magical.

nothing prevents them from bringing this plan to the floor. nothing prevents them from bringing this to the floor. i would like to see this plan come to the floor. we must advance the debate. thank you. >> ? you have been helpful and positive. >> let me begin by saying thank you for doing what many people that you could not do. that is to keep 18

commissioners with diverse views together to this point so that we discuss a plan which, although the two of you put it together, certainly a number of them members of this table are prepared to vote for. i think that maybe the story of this commission's life. somehow the two of you found a way to keep all of us working together. i applaud you for that. let me thank each and every one of our commission colleagues who participated. this could have easily collapsed immediately before we got to this point. had we decided to run to the media and start talking about what we like and did not like to undercut your efforts as chair. i think to each of my colleagues on this commission, thank you for helping make this a constructive effort.

perhaps the second bit of news if i were writing the front page of my newspaper, where we were kept together working and -- almost to the point of having a plan presented, you were serious. you put taboos on the table. sacred cows are in your plan. i think if nothing else, we have laid before the american public the template that gives people an opportunity to start discussing what we have to do to get our fiscal house in order. i started the first time we met by saying that to me, we have to somehow get to the point of understanding how it is we went from surpluses as far as the eye could see 10 years ago, to

deficits as far as the eye can see today. something happened in these 10 years that caused us to go from an economy that was turning to an economy that is in the hospital. some of it is cyclical. it is part of the structural process we go through in our economy. you have to acknowledge that a good portion of this is due to the fact that we have ups and downs. we are in a down. part of it is because as i think you say in the beginning of your report, if i can call you -- quote this, i am reading from page 10. the federal debt has increased dramatically, rising from 33% of gdp to 60%. it was driven by two wars which

were never paid for. the escalation was driven by fiscally and irresponsible policies along with the economic downturn. the resolution of our fiscal crisis depends on making sure that we no longer get involved in activities that we're not willing to pay for and we're not responsible for. we were coming along, creating surpluses, creating millions of jobs for americans and now we're not. i want to attack those problems. what were the sacred cows that had as partying for some while others were left to clean up the mess? this plan identifies some of those and i believe that for those reasons, it is worth

considering where this plan takes us. let me briefly tell you what i think are the absolute positives of this plan. you put those taboos on the table. you create fire walls. they are critical because we know what happens. everyone coaches and the best poachers are the most influential. the special interests who have tons of money know how to approach best and they know how to succeed. when it comes to making cuts, we may have benevolent motives. at the end of the day, it is the strongest of the poachers who prevails. invariably, what gets cut is not necessarily the most important place to start creating responsibility. secondly, you did something i think few people were willing to do. you identified these their marks. if we want to talk about spending, you cannot just talk

about on the preparation side. our spending dwarfs anything we do on the appropriations side. we had this conversation about spending earmarks, $60 billion in the year. spending is 70 times greater than appropriations earmarks. it would take us 70 years of having eliminated the appropriations earmarks to equal one year of spending through the tax code on just the remarks. i applaud you for having raised that. let me tell you where i do have some concerns. well you took on the remarks, i think you did it -- we have averaged $11 trillion in tax giveaways. if your plan takes care of a $4

trillion problem, we had almost three times the amount of money you have in your plan in cuts available through tax earmarks. to me, you punted. we punted. if you want to take on the special interests, the poachers, you would have taken on the biggest poachers. there are no school kids i know of who forced us to spend money on textbooks. we do it because it is an investment. there are folks who have tax breaks because they spend tons of money to make sure they got to approach. the fact this plan dedicates 10% of those earmarks that you have identified to resolve the deficit says that for the last 10 years, $11 trillion won out that were going to ask for a small percentage of that to help deal with the deficits we face. that is anemic. this commission would punt if it

allowed it to occur. secondly, on the issue of the appropriations spending, the fire walls are some important. if they are not real, we will end up making cuts that are devastating to middle class america. the folks who party for a decade will not have to clean up their mess. i believe it is time the department of defense was on the table. we will ask the department of defense to be audited and account for itself so we can figure out where the waste and fraud is. we have to be serious about that. i will say that given the serious way that the chair is addressed this problem, i want to make sure i give a serious response to your efforts on social security. i have a father who worked all his life with his hands. he got a sixth grade education. he did everything from canning tomatoes to fixing the brakes on

railroad cars to cleaning ships in the l.a. ports to picking every crop he could think of a pin down the west coast and spending the bulk of his time doing road construction during the heyday of our freeway construction. when he retired in his 50's, he showed the effects of all that physical labor. if we are going to make this a plan that works for mayor, it invests in americans, those who work hard. social security is not a problem. in terms of the fiscal crisis. social security has trillions of dollars in surplus. there is no aspect of the government that has anything near $1 in surplus. to say we must take on social security i think is -- should be a dead hearing. it does not really work here.

we have to do with the long term solvency. if we could talk about the federal government's operating budget, the government will have a deficit. social security is in surplus. it will not have a problem for least 25 to 30 years. saying you have to do it now is a disturbance to someone like my father who worked hard and paid all this time to social security. i am not interested in cutting the benefits of a man who made -- never made $22,000 a year. simply because we have to take care of the fiscal mess that was caused by poachers in this economy. i do not know if anyone could have done a better job. i have some concerns. i do not want to leave the table

because i started off at first they say everything must be on the table. you left everything on the table. i will stay at the table. we will see what happens on friday. you did made a valuable service. >> i worked on immigration stuff with you and you always kept your word with me. >> you have been great. i hope you end up in -- being a great leader of our party. i now go to my congressmen and my friend. the person who i can tell you. lots of us got credit in the balanced budget trade it would not have happened without the leaders here. thank you for all you have done.

>> first of all, i would like to echo what everyone else has said. but would not be here where we are, about to do something of significance. to the staff and their output, he made a huge contribution to this. i will miss doing battle over the budget with you this year. i wish you said those we showed that you can have comity, you can have stability, and you can have a constructive criticism without coming to a conclusion on all of the same points. we proved it can be done. we never did sit down and make a search for common ground and come up with a deficit reduction

budget. this is an opportunity that may not pass again soon. if we fail today, i am not sure of the destiny. i would like to make one thing clear. i think it bears repeating that the cuts that are outlined in this proposal, namely the tax expenditures -- this committee has no authority to pass any particular law or put it in the process of being passed, but it lays down an agreement. for those who say how do you do it? they come forward with policy based on arguments that would accomplish the bottom-line results. i have been concerned about certain aspects of the budget.

in 1997, erskine and i worked together. it has to be balanced, fair, and equitable. i have a problem with discretionary spending to start with. i think it is right to have a cap. i think it is right to have fire walls. if you ask someone who knows the problem well, one is revenues, what is tax cuts, and the other is mandatory spending. the reductions in discretionary spending, as i understand it, it was two times mandatory spending. it is part of the problem. it is a little odd that we are discussing the renewal of the

tax cuts. it will be around $4 trillion. we are laboring to give birth. if we do nothing of the tax cuts, we would have the same bottom line effects. that must strike you as ironic. i go back to my initial point. it goes to the committees of jurisdiction. they will decide what policies are implemented in order to achieve the bottom-line results that are essential to achieving the overall results of this package. we only make illustrative ideas that are feasible, can be done, and that policy-based reasons to be changed. what we are looking at here is a great opportunity.

i will not declare my colors until i have read it all, but this is an opportunity. if it fails, i do not think we will revisit it for some time to come. it is important to continue the process. we have been given a baseline. we should keep this process moving and billing. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, chairman spratt. we are going to dr. cockburn. >> first of all, let me add my thank you to the staff for incredible leadership. being the first tied to serve on a commission and not having any political affiliation, it has been an interesting experience.

i came to this with no ideologue see -- with no ideologies on how to address the issue other than a citizen with children and grandchildren concerned about the future. it is clear to me all of you have the same feelings as well. there are a couple of things i would like to highlight. as we develop this framework, and i do believe it is a framework whether we get 14 votes were not, i believe any of the things listed here will be addressed if not all of them. but it is important as we chart a future of growth for our country that we put into perspective the importance of how much we look in the rearview mirror and how much we look at the future. i think that is what we tried to

do with this document is to understand clearly the demographic trend, to understand clearly the need for greater global competitiveness because we are in -- we are indeed slipping, to understand the focus for education and developing a talent-base in this country that can compete globally, and to get back to a position oeconic growth. we can all the different on whether we agree this is the right approach to get there, but let me say this. i deeply support what we are trying to do in terms of tax reform. from a business standpoint, we have been hamstrung by the tax clause we have in place. i also think it is time to look

at social security, not just for the next 20 or 30 years, but where we will be longer term. if we do not take the action now, we do not put ourselves in the position to address the situation in the longer term. i do believe the time is now. i would hope that as we move forward we do not find ourselves caught up in a process that takes us years to implement many of these things. if we take action now -- and this has been reinforced -- the importance of taking action now can put us on a path for a stronger future over the long term than if we wait and discuss and the years go by and we find ourselves in a place we do not want to be. many of our colleagues have

reinforced the point that once the ball starts rolling in the wrong direction, it increases in speed. we had the opportunity to impact our future. if we wait to act on certain things, we risk putting that ability to shape our future is in great jeopardy. i for one support this. do i agree with everything? no. i am about 80% there. that is more than enough to agree that this is the framework for us to move forward. i thank you you for your work. i would like to thank senators conrad and gregg. it has been your epoch this and focus in helping us come together that has brought us to

this point. >> thank you. i think that is absolutely true. mr. stern? >> i said at the first meeting that i do love this country and i happen to think that when the congressman says it is a gift, it has been a gift for me. i imagined my grandfather sitting at the table with all of these congressmen and senators. it is been a great honor. i want to say to people everywhere, including my own community, this has made me appreciate the precarious situation we face as a nation. our inability and waiting to act will only make the situation a lot worse. i do not normally get to sit at the table with all of these republicans. [laughter]

but to them and to the others, i think this was a unique process. i got to understand and learn that people are serious about getting things done. i appreciate the environment you set. this may be a different process than som people have a chance to experience in washington, d.c. no matter what happens, the commission has been a success. we focused the views of the nation on a very serious problem, a very sobering problem. i actually have to write my own plan. at the end, this is about plants. it is not about ideas. it is not about what your favorite things or. -- favorite things are.

it is the same kind of discretionary spending. i want people to read it and give you the sense of the agreement that i have. i think the problem in washington too often is that we are historians and not future is. we are at a very different moment in economic history. this is the third economic revolution. it has only taken 30 years. we are witnessing what a global economy is. we are acting in ways that we are not familiar with to make strong and decisive decisions. i want to put on the table some things i do not think are necessarily part of this report, but i think goes to the whole question of jobs, economic growth, and competitiveness. one is the tax system. i think you have hit the sweet spot on tax expenditures and

lowering rates. we need to clean up this mess up so americans do not have to hire tax accountants every time they make a business decision. that is not how we should do business in america. two, when it comes to health care, i appreciate that we want to go back and take a look at obama and health care. i think we need to go forward. we are the only nation on earth that puts a price on our health care against the cost of our products. the problem we have in health care will not be fixed by patching up a system we have that needs fundamental restructuring. paul ryan has a one set of ideas. there are other sets of ideas around the world. we are restructuring, not try to

patch up a plant that cost just 5% more of gdp than other countries. we cannot compete with a global economy. how we deal with that will be a great debate, but we have to deal with it. for all the discussion about competitiveness and a lowering corporate tax rates, i do want to acknowledge that most countries around the world have an additional way to help their competitiveness. that is to have some kind of consumption tax. if you look at europe and other places, they lower tax rates. so could we. we could eliminate 100 million tax returns. we need to think about taxes that help our exports and defer or hurt our interest. we have a tax system that does not help our system around the world. it helps everyone else.

i appreciate what the cochairs have done. they note this is not my methodology of doing it, but i think in the end, a pay-as-you- go system does not allow us to make the money. if we cannot figure out a way to invest in infrastructure, we have to push it into a stimulus bill. that is not a reasonable way for a country to make decisions about its long-term investments. i have written my own attempts to try to get to the same place. i think we need to tackle some of the biggest issues. there is no reason that the president of the united states and the leaders of the house and senate cannot put a plan on the house of before. we should keep voting, debating, and amending until we

have a plan. it cannot wait any longer. >> if there were two people that i came up here with a caricature of, it would be dr. coburn and another. i could not be more wrong. you have been constructed. i thank you for that. dr. cockburn has become my doctor and my friend. nobody's staff has been more helpful to us than his staff. he has pursued this with logic each and every step. thank you for all you have done. we will go to you, dr. coburn. >> always like to thank you for your efforts. i would also like to recognize a might staff who have gone a lot of slick -- who have gone a lot of sleepless nights trying to develop a product. as a physician, i am frame to

find the real problem. at what is the real problem? not the symptoms. what is the real disease? the real disease is a we have abandoned the concept of our founders. we have created reliance instead of depending on self-reliance. we have created government programs that are unaffordable. we have abandoned limited government. we have abandoned enumerated powers. now we are in trouble. nobody is looking at what the real problem is. the real problem is us. alexander tyler said, "all republics fail." the average length is 200 years. they all fail over fiscal issues.

they rocked from within. we are wrrotting. in 2004, i had the privilege of reading a book by peter peterson. he talked about where we are today long before anybody was talking about it. he wrote the book in 2002. it is called "running on empty." it is not a partisan book. it raised the awareness of what is happening. if you do not think we are in trouble, think about the following numbers. 36 trillion dollars -- $36 trillion has to be funded to the world. that is what the borrowing we -- will be from governments around the world. what do you think will happen to the interest rates? what will happen to the cost of not living with a your economic means?

it will be disastrous for us. it is not coming in four or five years, it is coming in one or two. all of our trading partners are reacting to it negatively in the hopes that we can stimulate our economy when the real problem is that we have a way too much government and not enough of the thing that makes american great -- independence and self- reliance. we have created dependency. one in 19 americans is taking disability. with the law says you are only disabled if there are no jobs in the economy you can perform and we do not address this issue, we will be broke in seven years. we are adding more. they are getting ready to add two new categories to disability

in the next month without congressional oversight or anything else. we are out of control as a government. we have abandoned the principles that made america exceptional, which were not the government. it was the people. it was relying on it ourselves and not saying, "i can't take a path and depend on big government." a compassionate response to those who cannot fix their situation in the other way, we ought to be there to help them. that is not what we have created in our country. there are a lot of things i think have been accomplished to this commission. there is a lot of knowledge gained by a lot of people. we totally disregarded the long- term problems that we have with

health care. i believe -- i agree with paul. paul's roadmap is a way to solve that problem. nobody has come forward with another solution because nobody has the courage to come forward and say we cannot have all we think we have today and still have a future. paul has had the coverage -- has had the courage to say if in fact we want to solve the problems, everybody has to sacrifice. that means you cannot be comfortable with the status quo. the real problems for our nation will come forward in two years. we have a treasury department still borrowing short-term money believing they will save interest costs on our debt terms.

they are sacrificing be good for the short term. what looks good in the short term are all big problems for the long term. do what looks good. this plan is a plan. the people who worked on it have struggled to try to build a consensus. i have a heart aches with tons of it. but i know we have to go forward. this is not the first. if we pass this plan by the congress, two years from now we will come back and make it more difficult. this is just the down payment on what are some very real and difficult sacrifices that everybody in this country will have to make. if you really think about what built our country and what is

the heritage of our country, it is sacrifice. jeb talked about, the real opportunity as it goes forward -- it is not about owning a house, it is the potential to own a house. where we come together and put something out, even though probably 50% i am not happy with, as a downpayment to make a statement to say this problem is so real, thomas october and cannot help what he wants. i will have to sacrifice. my family will have to sacrifice. but i want to make sure my grandchildren have some of the same opportunities and freedom that i have experienced. the potential for us to read

embraced -- reembrace the character of america will only come if we embrace the principles that our founders embraced when they started this. when benjamin franklin was asked what he did, he replied, "i gave you a republic so you could keep it pure "history says we are not going to make it. we all have to give up something. everybody at this table give up something. the way forward for america is for everybody to start sacrificing so we create a future that is honoring the tremendous sacrifices that came before us. >> i share the view.

i did not know who you were. i know you were a man of integrity and honesty. you are real. >> i hope everybody sees that. i could not have more respect than i do for you. thank you for the guidance and wisdom you have given me. >> i am the wrap-up speaker? [laughter] >> do you not wish? [laughter] >> i am will continue to study this for a day or so. i will not give my decision today. that does not mean that i will not go over what i see here in the process. i first want to go back to comments that were made with regard to erskine or allen.

i did not know you will. i probably met you on social occasions. during this deliberation is where i came to know both of you. i have developed a great respect and admiration for you -- and for all of the members of the commission. i knew some of the well. others in you very well. -- others i knew very well. the relationships that were developed on this commission have been a very big part of the success of its. i personally have great respect and admiration for each of the commission members. i want to add to that, the other idahoan on the commission has

been outstanding in bringing us together and delivering a product for us. having said that, i do share a lot of the opinions that have been expressed by other members of the commission. i will not go over all of those, but i want to talk about some of the positives and some of the concerns i have. i have a lot of heartburn about this. there are also some things in here that are really important to me. i think they are important to the american people. let me just go through them. at the outset of this process, i was very concerned that this commission would take too small or limited a view of our task. there has been plenty of discussion that i will not go over about the threat we face and about how we are on an unsustainable course. i will repeat what someone else

said -- we are understating it if we are not clearly spelling out in our minds and for the american people what the alternative of an action is. in fact, for those who will attack what ever happens from this commission or any other plants that are brought forward, i think it is important that america understands the discourse and debates that will take place on this issue in the context of what the status quo is. is the status quo better or worse than what is being proposed? frankly, when a clear understanding of what we are facing is achieved, i think a better perspective of this proposal is achieved. that being said, i was

concerned about how this process started out. i was very concerned that we would have too limited to eight view and not take the opportunity to make the bold steps that need to be made and come up with a bold comprehensive plan that will put us on the pathway to achieving the american dream as has been described here and making get so this generation can pass on to the next generation a better standard of living in the ability to live their lives in this country with the freedom they deserve. in terms of the strength of this proposal that i see, one of the key strengths is that it does recognize that spending is the problem. it also, i think, fortunately

recognizes that on the revenue side, the issue is reform of our tax code. that is one of the most significant, big parts of this plan as i see it. i have said too many of you in other meetings, that if we set out to establish a tax code that is more inefficient, more unfair, or more anti-competitive with the rest of the economies in the world, which could probably not do much worse than what we have with our current tax code. in congress we continue to have the debates which we are having right now about raising or lowering the rates. what we ought to be talking about is what kind of tax code should we have? this proposal put that on the table and it movhe